It only took 35 years, but it is a milestone for Tulsa and human rights.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100618_11_A1_Amjrtf152022
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 23, 2010, 11:50:19 PM
It only took 35 years, but it is a milestone for Tulsa and human rights.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100618_11_A1_Amjrtf152022
I'm sure some bat$hit crazy republican will challenge that...this is Oklahoma, dontcha know.
Quote from: Hoss on June 24, 2010, 12:00:49 AM
I'm sure some bat$hit crazy republican will challenge that...this is Oklahoma, dontcha know.
It was passed 6-3 (surprisingly), so it wasn't exactly a squeaker.
I'm not sure what there is to challenge....it's a pretty cut and dry case of anti-discrimination employment policy, and one that most major municipalities already have in place across the country.
What exactly is a "protected class"? That's the part I'm not quite getting and the story quoted Councilor Westcott as saying the courts don't recognize sexual orientation as a protected class.
Personally, my preferred sexual orientation is horizontal.
I heard Sally Kearn was on her way up here with a trunk full of fertalizer and some of her versions of the bible.
Quote from: Townsend on June 24, 2010, 09:07:01 AM
I heard Sally Kearn was on her way up here with a trunk full of fertalizer and some of her versions of the bible.
I was wondering when her name would be invoked.
Quote from: Hoss on June 24, 2010, 09:28:32 AM
I was wondering when her name would be invoked.
And now I shall rule 34 it.
Quote from: Townsend on June 24, 2010, 09:29:36 AM
And now I shall rule 34 it.
Is that like Marshall's Law?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:34:30 AM
Is that like Marshall's Law?
No, Marshall's law was a good idea.
If you fully comprehend what rule 34 does with Kearn and this whole topic then you'll agree with Hoss. He's correct...ewwww
Quote from: Townsend on June 24, 2010, 09:45:59 AM
No, Marshall's law was a good idea.
If you fully comprehend what rule 34 does with Kearn and this whole topic then you'll agree with Hoss. He's correct...ewwww
In essence, rule 34 states that if it's found on the internet, then there is porn of it. Regardless.
I will defend anyone who is discriminated against for being who they are.
Can we recognize individuals as a protected class?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
I will defend anyone who is discriminated against for being who they are.
Can we recognize individuals as a protected class?
It would be great if we could. However, as long as discrimination exists, we will have to codify protection against it.
I have discriminating tastes
I don't get it? What's the big deal about Sexual Orientals?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3o69DLFcCMA/SW5grB97xsI/AAAAAAAABus/Jr00pOoeKuU/s400/RosannaDanna_l.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2010, 10:47:28 AM
I don't get it? What's the big deal about Sexual Orientals?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3o69DLFcCMA/SW5grB97xsI/AAAAAAAABus/Jr00pOoeKuU/s400/RosannaDanna_l.jpg)
Someone brought his "A" game to the office today.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/10/02/alg_movie_more_than_a_game.jpg)
Breakfast at Panera brings out the best in me. . . and I close a big sale today!
I don't discriminate, I hate everyone equally
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:03:23 AM
What exactly is a "protected class"? That's the part I'm not quite getting and the story quoted Councilor Westcott as saying the courts don't recognize sexual orientation as a protected class.
Personally, my preferred sexual orientation is horizontal.
Protected classes are groups of people who are protected under law from discrimination. Its hard to understand for people who have never been victims of discrimination.
And the courts will now have to recognize protection of sexual orientation as a 'protected class' in Tulsa as it pertains to this employment law, just like national origins, disabilities, gender, etc.
BTW, religion is also a protected class, and religion is not a genetic trait...
Unfortunately as long as there are people who discriminate based solely on the traits of another they do not like or agree with, then the need for these types of protections under the law will exist.
Also, for the record, sexual orientation includes heterosexuality too.
My hair was red before it turned grey. I want protected class status for people who used to have red hair.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 11:44:30 AM
My hair was red before it turned grey. I want protected class status for people who used to have red hair.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 11:44:30 AM
My hair was red before it turned grey. I want protected class status for people who used to have red hair.
Good luck with that one.
I find it insulting that some people take lightly the topic of discrimination, which is still very rampant in places like Oklahoma.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
Good luck with that one.
I find it insulting that some people take lightly the topic of discrimination, which is still very rampant in places like Oklahoma.
doesn't help when we have laws that are discrimnatory, such as ones that discriminate against non-indians
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 11:32:40 AM
Also, for the record, sexual orientation includes heterosexuality too.
Quite well aware of this, but probably a good thing for people to know who are less tolerant.
azbad, I think a lot of people equate this with special treatment for selected groups which isn't the case, but somehow that's the incorrect message a lot of people get.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
Good luck with that one.
I find it insulting that some people take lightly the topic of discrimination, which is still very rampant in places like Oklahoma.
I find it insulting that so many feel the need to
hide behind being belong to a "protected class". Discrimination is wrong but to try to spell out every possible reason for discrimination is discrimination toward the "unprotected class".
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 12:01:40 PM
I find it insulting that so many feel the need to hide behind being a "protected class". Discrimination is wrong but to try to spell out every possible reason for discrimination is discrimination toward the "unprotected class".
You are completely out of touch. It has nothing to do with hiding behind anything. In fact it prevents people from having to hide who they are in the workplace.
If someone feels they can fire someone based solely on the fact that they do not like their sexual orientation, then that is wrong and should not be tolerated.
Do you think black people are 'hiding' behind the laws? Do you think it would be ok to fire someone just for being black, or white, or brown??
Just because you may have an issue with someone's sexual preference, that has no relevence on what is lawful in the workplace when it comes to hiring or firing.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 12:08:33 PM
You are completely out of touch. It has nothing to do with hiding behind anything. In fact it prevents people from having to hide who they are in the workplace.
If someone feels they can fire someone based solely on the fact that they do not like their sexual orientation, then that is wrong and should not be tolerated.
Do you think black people are 'hiding' behind the laws? Do you think it would be ok to fire someone just for being black, or white, or brown??
Just because you may have an issue with someone's sexual preference, that has no relevence on what is lawful in the workplace when it comes to hiring or firing.
The protections offered in such ordinances however, is still no guarantee that some mid-level bigoted manager won't construct a way to fire someone or place someone under added scruitiny for race, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin. They sure as heck won't list it as a reason for the firing.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 12:01:00 PM
Quite well aware of this, but probably a good thing for people to know who are less tolerant.
azbad, I think a lot of people equate this with special treatment for selected groups which isn't the case, but somehow that's the incorrect message a lot of people get.
Yeah, I know. I've dealt with this my entire life. It all boils down to intolerance and hatred towards certain types of people that others simply do not want to accept.
I mostly blame religious groups more than anything for this intolerant and hateful propaganda.
I have often asked myself this question: If organized religion did not exist, would homophobia exist?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 12:20:36 PM
Yeah, I know. I've dealt with this my entire life. It all boils down to intolerance and hatred towards certain types of people that others simply do not want to accept.
I mostly blame religious groups more than anything for this intolerant and hateful propaganda.
I have often asked myself this question: If organized religion did not exist, would homophobia exist?
I'm rather a fan of disorganized religion myself.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 12:15:50 PM
The protections offered in such ordinances however, is still no guarantee that some mid-level bigoted manager won't construct a way to fire someone or place someone under added scruitiny for race, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin. They sure as heck won't list it as a reason for the firing.
Absolutely true. But to at least have the law in place explicity states that such discriminatory behavior is illegal and there could be repercussions.
A good HR department will have well documented examples of an employees failures to perform their job, thus resulting in termination.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 12:24:08 PM
I'm rather a fan of disorganized religion myself.
I find the term 'organized religion' an oxymoron.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 12:08:33 PM
Do you think black people are 'hiding' behind the laws? Do you think it would be ok to fire someone just for being black, or white, or brown??
I wasn't hired for a summer job that I had the previous two summers (long time ago when I was in college) because I am white. The job had to go to black person.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 12:08:33 PM
It has nothing to do with hiding behind anything.
You probably won't like it any better but see my edit. I can understand that you cannot be what I would call objective about protected classes.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 12:30:43 PM
I wasn't hired for a summer job that I had the previous two summers (long time ago when I was in college) because I am white. The job had to go to black person.
Did they actually tell you that was the reason?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 12:42:15 PM
I can understand that you cannot be what I would call objective about protected classes.
I feel the same about you.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 11:32:40 AM
Protected classes are groups of people who are protected under law from discrimination. Its hard to understand for people who have never been victims of discrimination.
And the courts will now have to recognize protection of sexual orientation as a 'protected class' in Tulsa as it pertains to this employment law, just like national origins, disabilities, gender, etc.
BTW, religion is also a protected class, and religion is not a genetic trait...
Unfortunately as long as there are people who discriminate based solely on the traits of another they do not like or agree with, then the need for these types of protections under the law will exist.
Also, for the record, sexual orientation includes heterosexuality too.
How does Oklahoma as a "Right to Work" state need worry about the law?
No employed class is protected. The reason given may be translated to another group of words... thats all.
If I am wrong please explain. I have had a real problem with the whole "Right to Work" legislation being enacted.
The reason I was told their was such a push for the legislation to begin with was "Whirlpool".
Although I have never been the victim of a "Right to Work" action; I have witnessed several discussions, behind closed doors, to use it to circumvent any action by an affected ex-employee.
The whole thing sucks IMO.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 12:01:40 PM
I find it insulting that so many feel the need to hide behind being belong to a "protected class".
Funny, because you belong to several protected classes.
I am going to make some big assumptions here, so forgive me if I am wrong but.....
You are male, heterosexual, middle aged, and religious.
ALL of those are 'protected classes'.
Welcome to the club.
Quote from: Rico on June 24, 2010, 01:15:30 PM
How does Oklahoma as a "Right to Work" state need worry about the law?
No employed class is protected. The reason given may be translated to another group of words... thats all.
If I am wrong please explain. I have had a real problem with the whole "Right to Work" legislation being enacted.
The reason I was told their was such a push for the legislation to begin with was "Whirlpool".
Although I have never been the victim of a "Right to Work" action; I have witnessed several discussions, behind closed doors, to use it to circumvent any action by an affected ex-employee.
The whole thing sucks IMO.
'Right to work' simply means you can fire at will any employee, at any time for any
legal reason. If you are a smart employer, however, you better have all your documents in order. Right to work is not necessarily a bad thing, because it allows employers to easily rid themselved of unproductive or unscrupulous workers, while the law still protects against unfair hiring/firing practices.
This new policy only applies to City of Tulsa employees, btw.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 01:29:36 PM
'Right to work' simply means you can fire at will any employee, at any time for any legal reason. If you are a smart employer, however, you better have all your documents in order. Right to work is not necessarily a bad thing, because it allows employers to easily rid themselved of unproductive or unscrupulous workers, while the law still protects against unfair hiring/firing practices.
This new policy only applies to City of Tulsa employees, btw.
I understand the "new policy" only applies to COT employees.
If that is your understanding on how "Right to Work" is used... You really should get out more often.
No insult intended. The way it is being used is as a protection from "Organized Labor", "downsizing", etc.
Of course I do admit it could be used in an ethical way. Not that downsizing is not in most cases an ethical use.
But, when you take employees that are fired and replaced, doing the same job, because the seniority and pay grade of the first group is not of benefit to the companies bottom line..... That troubles me.
Quote from: Rico on June 24, 2010, 01:36:38 PM
I understand the "new policy" only applies to COT employees.
If that is your understanding on how "Right to Work" is used... You really should get out more often.
No insult intended. The way it is being used is as a protection from "Organized Labor", "downsizing", etc.
Of course I do admit it could be used in a ethical way.
I was simply stating that is what 'right to work' means, not necessarily how it is used. Of course it is manipulated and used unethically- most things are. But I do not think its intentions are necessarity suspect, as it was initially intended to protect both worker and employer.
Regardless, it really has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 01:44:36 PM
I was simply stating that is what 'right to work' means, not necessarily how it is used. Of course it is manipulated and used unethically- most things are. But I do not think its intentions are necessarity suspect, as it was initially intended to protect both worker and employer.
Regardless, it really has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws.
There was a "Right To Work" law flap that happened after you left Oklahoma, I believe that's the point you and Rico are talking past each other on. It had to do with allowing "open shops" to help attract more employers to Oklahoma as a non-union haven.
You are confusing "At Will" and "Right to Work", "Right to Work" has to do with mandated union membership being prohibited, "At Will" means that a company can fire anyone at any time for any legal reason.
Quote from: swake on June 24, 2010, 02:45:37 PM
You are confusing "At Will" and "Right to Work", "Right to Work" has to do with mandated union membership being prohibited, "At Will" means that a company can fire anyone at any time for any legal reason.
You are absolutely correct. I was reading azbad's posts on this and also picked up on the incorrect use.
Quote from: swake on June 24, 2010, 02:45:37 PM
You are confusing "At Will" and "Right to Work", "Right to Work" has to do with mandated union membership being prohibited, "At Will" means that a company can fire anyone at any time for any legal reason.
Thanks Swake.
this is more of what I was talking about.
( any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1])
Quote from: swake on June 24, 2010, 02:45:37 PM
You are confusing "At Will" and "Right to Work", "Right to Work" has to do with mandated union membership being prohibited, "At Will" means that a company can fire anyone at any time for any legal reason.
Thanks for the correction. "At Will" was what was meant.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 12:46:59 PM
Did they actually tell you that was the reason?
The job was manual labor at the company my father worked for. Cutting grass, painting equipment, cleaning the building, etc. It and several others like it were set up with the intention of making a job available for children of employees going to college. I told my boss at the end of the preceding summer that I wanted to come back the next summer. Late in the spring, when it was time to look for summer jobs, my father told me he had been told that I could not have the job I held for the previous two summers because they had to hire a black person.
So, the short answer is yes.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 01:19:48 PM
Funny, because you belong to several protected classes.
I am going to make some big assumptions here, so forgive me if I am wrong but.....
You are male, heterosexual, middle aged, and religious.
ALL of those are 'protected classes'.
Welcome to the club.
I am male, white, heterosexual (but single), approaching retirement age and haven't been to church except weddings, funerals, and a tour of the building in more than 50 years (not religious).
Male is not protected in the sense of the legislation we have discussed. There have been advantages but not by legislation.
White, see affirmative action. Very much unprotected.
Single: He's single, we can give him extra unpaid duty, he has no family obligations. Send him out of town even though he had other plans, no problem, he's single.
Over 55, somewhat protected from being fired by over age 55 laws. Try to find a new job though. Over qualified and over age.
Edit: moved end of quote command
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 06:24:42 PM
I am male, white, heterosexual (but single), approaching retirement age and haven't been to church except weddings, funerals, and a tour of the building in more than 50 years (not religious).
Male is not protected in the sense of the legislation we have discussed. There have been advantages but not by legislation.
White, see affirmative action. Very much unprotected.
Single: He's single, we can give him extra unpaid duty, he has no family obligations. Send him out of town even though he had other plans, no problem, he's single.
Over 55, somewhat protected from being fired by over age 55 laws. Try to find a new job though. Over qualified and over age.
"The expansion adds sexual orientation to a list of protected classes that already includes race, sex, religion, ancestry, age and disability."So yes, your sex is a protected class, be it male or female.
Race (all of them, even white) is protected.
Age is definitely protected.
And now, your heterosexuality is protected. I'll bet you are thrilled.
So is it just that you do not approve specifically of sexual orientations being protected? Should there be any protections at all? Should employers be able to unfairly fire you based on any number of biases? Why shouldn't one's sexual preference be included, if there has been a proven history of unfair bias against people with different orientations? What does it hurt you?
Whether you like it or not, you are included and protected under these laws too.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
I will defend anyone who is discriminated against for being who they are.
Can we recognize individuals as a protected class?
As an employer, do you mean if this showed up to work I should not be able to fire him/her if I detest tattoos/piercings?
(http://www.cuttingedge.org/body-pierce.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 06:54:34 PM
As an employer, do you mean if this showed up to work I should not be able to fire him/her if I detest tattoos/piercings?
(http://www.cuttingedge.org/body-pierce.jpg)
Wow that's pretty.
Employers have the right to dictate dress/appearance while on the job.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 06:45:56 PM
"The expansion adds sexual orientation to a list of protected classes that already includes race, sex, religion, ancestry, age and disability."
So yes, your sex is a protected class, be it male or female.
Race (all of them, even white) is protected.
Age is definitely protected.
And now, your heterosexuality is protected. I'll bet you are thrilled.
So is it just that you do not approve specifically of sexual orientations being protected? Should there be any protections at all? Should employers be able to unfairly fire you based on any number of biases? Why shouldn't one's sexual preference be included, if there has been a proven history of unfair bias against people with different orientations? What does it hurt you?
Whether you like it or not, you are included and protected under these laws too.
You got what you wanted with protection for sexual orientation but ridicule me about hair color. Ever been the butt of hair color jokes? Better dead than have a red head. Beat him like a red headed step child. (No, I am not a step child.) I suppose I could have colored my hair but that would be the equivalent of you having to act straight. It would have been harder to hide the freckles that usually go with red hair. (Actually, I have not lived my life as a victim because of these type jokes.)
Where does it end?
If it ended with equal protection for all, I would be agreeable. It always seems to end up with a preference for the protected group over the original, admittedly often advantaged by default/tradition, in order to get even.
What about events like Miss ethnic or racial group other than white western European "beauty" pagents? Maybe they allow whites but I doubt it.
The Negro College Fund? Do they provide funds to qualified whites, asians, or Native Americans?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 06:45:56 PM
And now, your heterosexuality is protected. I'll bet you are thrilled.
Sure am.
I've always wanted to be a bartender in a gay bar. (Not really)
I don't think I'd make too much in tips dressed as a Hooter's waiter. Are they now not allowed to not hire me? (Don't really want to work there either.)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 07:08:10 PM
Wow that's pretty.
Employers have the right to dictate dress/appearance while on the job.
Wanting to look like that cannot be by choice, in my opinion. Must be something he was born to like or possibly a cultural thing. I am thinking of some body modifications that "we civilized folks" don't appreciate from some "primitive" groups. Why should an employer have the right to make him suppress his desire to look good?
FWIW, I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against in places like the workplace because of their sexual orientation. I just don't see making a law for every group that is or perceives themselves as victims to be the answer.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 08:56:53 PM
I've always wanted to be a bartender in a gay bar. (Not really)
LOL. FWIW, many, many bartenders in gay bars are straight. They know where the money is.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 09:20:33 PM
LOL. FWIW, many, many bartenders in gay bars are straight. They know where the money is.
Wouldn't surprise me. Just not what I want to do. It's nice to know that I couldn't be not hired because I'm straight.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 06:45:56 PM
So yes, your sex is a protected class, be it male or female.
Race (all of them, even white) is protected.
Age is definitely protected.
And now, your heterosexuality is protected. I'll bet you are thrilled.
Sounds like everything's protected. Great!
How about shoe size? Can I be fired if my feet are too big? Do we need to establish some protection for that?
How about ugly? Can I be fired or demoted for uglyness?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 07:20:36 AM
How about shoe size? Can I be fired if my feet are too big? Do we need to establish some protection for that?
How about ugly? Can I be fired or demoted for uglyness?
Shoe size should definately be cause for being fired. If your feet were normal size when you were hired and are now too big (excluding teens), you probably have a dangerous medical condition and need to be isolated for life.
Ugly. If you weren't ugly when you were hired, what happended? Traffic accident? Other terrible tragedy? Only beautiful people have the right to a job.
Just kidding.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 07:46:48 AM
Ugly. If you weren't ugly when you were hired, what happended? Traffic accident? Other terrible tragedy? Only beautiful people have the right to a job.
They were drunk when they hired me. I always look better after a few.
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 06:54:34 PM
As an employer, do you mean if this showed up to work I should not be able to fire him/her if I detest tattoos/piercings?
(http://www.cuttingedge.org/body-pierce.jpg)
A human tackle box. Great to have along on a fishing trip.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 08:42:21 PM
It always seems to end up with a preference for the protected group over the original, admittedly often advantaged by default/tradition, in order to get even.
Yes, let's continue a group's unfair advantage ad finitum. ::)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 07:20:36 AM
How about shoe size? Can I be fired if my feet are too big? Do we need to establish some protection for that?
You could be fired if it is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 07:20:36 AM
How about shoe size? Can I be fired if my feet are too big? Do we need to establish some protection for that?
Oh, Please no.
I already shop for the Herman Munster Collection. I won't even rent bowling shoes without duct tape to hide the shame of the large number on the back.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 08:10:51 AM
They were drunk when they hired me. I always look better after a few.
Did they let you drink on the job too?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 25, 2010, 08:33:47 AM
Yes, let's continue a group's unfair advantage ad finitum. ::)
So then you support discrimination in order to support a group at the expense of another group. You're just swapping groups.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 25, 2010, 10:08:10 AM
Oh, Please no.
I already shop for the Herman Munster Collection. I won't even rent bowling shoes without duct tape to hide the shame of the large number on the back.
You know what they say about big feet...
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 12:17:57 PM
You know what they say about big feet...
Whoever has em walks funny?
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 12:17:57 PM
You know what they say about big feet...
You can hunt 'em in Broken Bow?
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 12:17:57 PM
You know what they say about big feet...
Big feet...Big shoes?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 11:55:09 AM
So then you support discrimination in order to support a group at the expense of another group. You're just swapping groups.
What do you think affirmative action and minority contract quotas are?
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 01:08:09 PM
What do you think affirmative action and minority contract quotas are?
Making up for the disadvantage the formerly discriminated against minorities have against them?
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 01:08:09 PM
What do you think affirmative action and minority contract quotas are?
Duh!
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 05:07:55 PM
Making up for the disadvantage the formerly discriminated against minorities have against them?
Sorry Nathan, wrong is still wrong. I'm 100% for equal chance but to discriminate is still discrimination and against equal opportunity.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 09:46:07 PM
Sorry Nathan, wrong is still wrong. I'm 100% for equal chance but to discriminate is still discrimination and against equal opportunity.
Today, I agree with you. In the past, when blatant discrimination was rampant, it was a necessary evil. Thankfully, we white men don't get preferential treatment by default anymore, so it's not needed.
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 09:59:06 PM
Today, I agree with you. In the past, when blatant discrimination was rampant, it was a necessary evil. Thankfully, we white men don't get preferential treatment by default anymore, so it's not needed.
Having been the recipient of reverse discrimination, I disagree that it was even legitimate in the past (1971). I expect you and I will just have to disagree on this.
When entry and grading standards were lowered for minorities at the University of Delaware (and many others) where I got my Bachelors degree in engineering, it only lowered the value of my degree. That is one of the purposes of Junior/Community Colleges, to prepare students for the rigors of a full 4 year degree.
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 12:17:57 PM
You know what they say about big feet...
They fit clown shoes?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 10:16:26 PM
Having been the recipient of reverse discrimination, I disagree that it was even legitimate in the past (1971). I expect you and I will just have to disagree on this.
When entry and grading standards were lowered for minorities at the University of Delaware (and many others) where I got my Bachelors degree in engineering, it only lowered the value of my degree. That is one of the purposes of Junior/Community Colleges, to prepare students for the rigors of a full 4 year degree.
That always irritates the hell out of me. How is it
reverse discrimination? Wouldn't it be, by deffinition, discrimination? And by calling it reverse discrimination, you imply a discrimination just by using the term?
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 10:40:31 PM
That always irritates the hell out of me. How is it reverse discrimination? Wouldn't it be, by deffinition, discrimination? And by calling it reverse discrimination, you imply a discrimination just by using the term?
Actually I think you are correct. The fact that it was against white guys seems to imply some legitimacy (See Nathan's comments). Since the "original?" discrimination was typically against blacks, the discrimination against whites was termed "reverse". Gotta love semantics.
I still lost my summer job and about $1700 when that was close to a year's tuition, living in the dorm and eating in the "dining hall". It was not insignificant. Out of state tuition ( I lived in PA until 1971), room & board was about $2000/yr. Tuition at TU then was about $35/credit hour. I took short course for 3 credits over the winter break in Jan 72 for $105.
Before you say how you would like to get a 4 year degree for less than $10,000., remember the salaries of the time. Minimum wage was $1.65/hr.
Edit: added (See Nathan's comments)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 10:16:26 PM
I expect you and I will just have to disagree on this.
Probably. Let me fully explain myself, though.
Black people in this country were at a significant disadvantage in both employment and college admissions immediately after the civil rights movement thanks to the hundreds of years of oppression by racists in our country. Something had to be done to bring them to parity. Since lots of schools and businesses simply refused to admit or employ black people, what other options were there?
It sucks being on the other side, I'm sure, but you managed to turn out OK regardless, partly thanks to the unseen breaks you got for having the right color skin and mostly due to your own hard work, I'm sure.
To use a different example, for many years after women first entered the workforce in large numbers they were drastically underpaid compared to their male counterparts of a similar skill level. Forcing employers to pay more equitably logically had to have had an effect on the typical male's salary, since more of the salary money was being allocated to women. I have a hard time with the idea that equal pay for equal work is discriminatory against men, even though it obviously has to reduce their pay (or, more likely, reduce their raises) somewhat.
FWIW, women are to this day paid less than men for most jobs, even accounting for the difference in compensation attributable to women taking months or years off when they have a child.
Quote from: nathanm on June 26, 2010, 12:13:14 AM
Probably. Let me fully explain myself, though.
Black people in this country were at a significant disadvantage in both employment and college admissions immediately after the civil rights movement thanks to the hundreds of years of oppression by racists in our country. Something had to be done to bring them to parity. Since lots of schools and businesses simply refused to admit or employ black people, what other options were there?
It sucks being on the other side, I'm sure, but you managed to turn out OK regardless, partly thanks to the unseen breaks you got for having the right color skin and mostly due to your own hard work, I'm sure.
To use a different example, for many years after women first entered the workforce in large numbers they were drastically underpaid compared to their male counterparts of a similar skill level. Forcing employers to pay more equitably logically had to have had an effect on the typical male's salary, since more of the salary money was being allocated to women. I have a hard time with the idea that equal pay for equal work is discriminatory against men, even though it obviously has to reduce their pay (or, more likely, reduce their raises) somewhat.
FWIW, women are to this day paid less than men for most jobs, even accounting for the difference in compensation attributable to women taking months or years off when they have a child.
At one point in time, yes, something needed to be done. But, it seems that affirmative action has caused a lot more of RA's "reverse" racism. You see this more on the streets than in the work force, but it is in the work force. What you see in the streets though is a more outspoken version of it where you can see that so many think that they are owed something because of the color of their skin. It is a mindset that seems to have been ingrained in the mind of so many, and I think it is in large part because for so long (and still do, just not as much) they recieved more because of they are this or that race.
Nathan,
Using your legitimacy of putting black people ahead of whites in hiring practices, maybe we should have paid women more than we paid men for the same job to make up for years of inequity.
And just for good measure, we should have fired white guys to make room for more blacks.
More later, I have some projects to get done this afternoon.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 26, 2010, 11:11:29 AM
And just for good measure, we should have fired white guys to make room for more blacks.
Or we could have just put 'em all on welfare. ::)
It surprises me that you have a problem with making up for hundreds of years of blatant oppression by leveling the playing field a little. Next, you're going to tell me that the blacks in South Africa should have just sit down and shut up.
Quote from: nathanm on June 26, 2010, 01:08:55 PM
Or we could have just put 'em all on welfare. ::)
It surprises me that you have a problem with making up for hundreds of years of blatant oppression by leveling the playing field a little. Next, you're going to tell me that the blacks in South Africa should have just sit down and shut up.
You have some wrong impressions of me.
I was and am for equal
opportunity. Equal success depends on the individual. Leveling the playing field is OK. Stacking it in favor of the formerly oppressed is just as wrong as the original oppression. Your liberal bias and white guilt will probably not accept that. (Plus, I think you are too young to have been there.) In the 60s I could sympathize with Dr. MLK. Protest fine, violence no. I had a difficult time understanding the blacks in Watts burning their (probably rented) homes and then complaining they had no place to live. I'm sure many of those places were dumps. There were definitely things wrong in the 60s. I remember traveling from (near) Philly to Fl to visit my grandparents. I couldn't understand why the "colored" had to use separate restrooms.
I remember that minorities (mostly blacks) had to be promoted to positions they may not be qualified for just to fill quotas. There were certainly well educated blacks but in many cases the former officially sanctioned discrimination did not provide the skills required to fill advanced jobs. Those people were being set up to fail. What is the good in that? I agree with Custosnox that to some extend the entitlement attitude was an unintended result of the Affirmative Action type legislation. Let's see, there are very few Black Airline pilots. Let's put some in the left (Captain) seat to fill a quota. Want to fly that plane as a passenger? A few years later, a black pilot works his way through the system with legally mandated
equal opportunity. I would be perfectly willing to be a passenger on that plane.
My summer job was admittedly a no skill job, other than to show up and do what I was told. With all the pro Union bias around here I am surprised that anything other than seniority and first come first serve would rule on who got the job.
My grandfather (on my father's side) came here from Poland around 1917. My dad's mother was born in the US of Polish parents. Being Polish then was about as popular as other immigrants in other times. Grandpop had some family members that preceded him but otherwise came here without speaking English and having only the shirt on his back. (OK, also pants and shoes etc.) Granted you couldn't tell he was Polish from across the street but as soon as he talked (even as a 90+ year old) you could tell he wasn't born in the USA. Signing his name on an job application was a dead giveaway. My grandfather worked in the coal mines for a while and then decided that was not what he wanted to do. He took correspondence courses to be a machinist and learned English in the process. I have a book he used which is part Polish and part English. My dad spoke Polish before he spoke English. Then my grandparents realized that if their kids were to have a chance in the future they would need to speak English. I even had an instructor in the US Navy electronics school in 1972 say he never met a smart "Polack". I aced his course. Remember "Polack" jokes? My mother's side of the family came here from the British Isles in the late 1800s.
Where I am going with this is that you cannot turn around centuries of oppression in 10 years. 40 years later (2 generations) we are getting closer. The feeling of entitlement went beyond minorities but that's probably another thread.
Minorities (again, mostly blacks in this case) needed to be given equal opportunity. I don't believe giving them an artificial advantage was actually a good thing to do, even for the blacks. I freely admit that I have no White Guilt. I was not responsible (nor were my parents or grandparents) for the oppression of the blacks. There were plenty that were though. Nathan, were your forefathers slave owners? Feeling guilty?
South Africa was another bad deal for blacks. As I understand it though, the White Brits actually did the early
significant settlements. Then they needed workers for the plantations etc. The blacks were nearby (much as Mexicans are for us) and filled the need. The oppression of Apartheid is no more excusable than our history of slavery and and Jim Crow laws. Could they have turned their country around without violence? I don't know. I still have a difficult time calling Mandella a hero due to his Communist leanings. Confiscation of white owned property there and in other countries in Africa has met with mixed/limited economic success. I am just recalling what I have read in the past and don't have specific documents to cite as proof.
Long story short.... Equal opportunity, yes. Discrimination, NO!
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 26, 2010, 09:37:20 PM
Long story short.... Equal opportunity, yes. Discrimination, NO!
I think you've got me wrong, too. I wouldn't support putting unqualified people in any position, regardless of skin color, past oppression, or anything else. What I do think was OK was preferentially hiring black people for positions they were qualified for to balance things out. As I said earlier, it was a necessary and
temporary measure to make up for the fact that up to that point black people generally couldn't get out of the mail room or janitorial positions, no matter what qualifications they had. Ideally, the discrimination wouldn't have been there in the first place, so no remedies would have been necessary, but that's not how it happened.
You're right, though, I wasn't there.
FWIW, it's not guilt, it's recognition of injustice. Sometimes, remedies necessarily impose a temporary hardship on the formerly privileged. And quotas were a far better way of going about it than just giving them money in an attempt to make up for the fact they weren't hired because of the color of their skin, to my mind. That would have led to a real sense of entitlement.
Quote from: nathanm on June 27, 2010, 01:33:19 AM
As I said earlier, it was a necessary and temporary measure to make up for the fact that up to that point black people generally couldn't get out of the mail room or janitorial positions, no matter what qualifications they had. Ideally, the discrimination wouldn't have been there in the first place, so no remedies would have been necessary, but that's not how it happened.
You're right, though, I wasn't there.
FWIW, it's not guilt, it's recognition of injustice. Sometimes, remedies necessarily impose a temporary hardship on the formerly privileged. And quotas were a far better way of going about it than just giving them money in an attempt to make up for the fact they weren't hired because of the color of their skin, to my mind. That would have led to a real sense of entitlement.
I understand your position, I just disagree with it. (Except that I do agree that just giving money would have led to a real sense of entitlement.)
Quote from: nathanm on June 27, 2010, 01:33:19 AM
As I said earlier, it was a necessary and temporary measure
I forgot to ask earlier, how long is
temporary?
I don't remember hearing how the fire fighters in Connecticut did in their lawsuit about the testing and promotion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 27, 2010, 12:11:26 PM
I don't remember hearing how the fire fighters in Connecticut did in their lawsuit about the testing and promotion.
If I remember correctly, the firefighters won. I just can't remember what the actual end result was. Might have to hit google in a bit lol
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 27, 2010, 12:11:26 PM
I forgot to ask earlier, how long is temporary?
As long as it takes to balance out the conditions that led to the need. Somewhere between 5 and 20 years depending. As I recall the way we did it in this country is that companies getting federal money had to use the quota system until they demonstrated it was no longer needed.
If there are particular companies or institutions that still discriminate against minorities, they ought to remain under the quota until they get it through their thick skulls that that's not OK in this day and age.
So basically, it should be (and was) done on a case by case basis.
Quote from: nathanm on June 27, 2010, 02:03:59 PM
As long as it takes to balance out the conditions that led to the need. Somewhere between 5 and 20 years depending. As I recall the way we did it in this country is that companies getting federal money had to use the quota system until they demonstrated it was no longer needed.
If there are particular companies or institutions that still discriminate against minorities, they ought to remain under the quota until they get it through their thick skulls that that's not OK in this day and age.
So basically, it should be (and was) done on a case by case basis.
And who decides if a company should remain under the quota system? After all, if it coud be proven, then it would be enforced via lawsuit.
Quote from: nathanm on June 27, 2010, 02:03:59 PM
Somewhere between 5 and 20 years depending.
There should be a timetable, like the one a significant number of people want for Iraq and Afghanistan. (Not trying to induce thread drift.)
Quotas were 20 years old 20 years ago.
Quote from: custosnox on June 27, 2010, 05:12:00 PM
And who decides if a company should remain under the quota system? After all, if it coud be proven, then it would be enforced via lawsuit.
That would be the EEOC.